this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2025
154 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

10138 readers
682 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

  2. Misinformation is not welcome here.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
154
Canada finally reveals the results of its universal basic income experiment (ecency.com)
submitted 12 hours ago by mintiefresh@piefed.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
59 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HamsterRage@lemmy.ca 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

If you did work in some reasonable proportion of married couples, it might get close to break even. Then remember that CPP, OAS and EI all disappear, and whatever funds they have would contribute to UBI. CPP at max draw by itself is almost as much UBI.

Then, for people that also have some other form of income, some quantity of the UBI would be taxed back.

I'm not saying that it really does scale up, but your analysis is overly simplistic.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

If you did work in some reasonable proportion of married couples, it might get close to break even. Then remember that CPP, OAS and EI all disappear, and whatever funds they have would contribute to UBI. CPP at max draw by itself is almost as much UBI.

Couples should not receive less under a Universal Basic Income. The point of UBI is every individual receives the same payment regardless of their potential status'.

Then, for people that also have some other form of income, some quantity of the UBI would be taxed back.

This is not UBI. The point of UBI is to be the basic income separate from working income, and not impacted by what one makes.

I’m not saying that it really does scale up, but your analysis is overly simplistic.

Feel free to provide all of your own data and analysis to demonstrate your assertion.

[–] HamsterRage@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Except that the amount for a couple in the article was 24K, which is 8K less than individually. You even quoted the 24K and disregarded it.

If you have 60K employment income, then the UBI would push you to 76K and the UBI would effectively be taxed at the highest rate. If your only income was UBI then you would exceed the basic personal exemption, and would pay zero tax.

Everyone gets the same UBI, but some people pay more tax on it if they have other income.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca -2 points 5 hours ago

Except that the amount for a couple in the article was 24K, which is 8K less than individually. You even quoted the 24K and disregarded it.

"Couples should not receive less under a Universal Basic Income. The point of UBI is every individual receives the same payment regardless of their potential status’."

If you have 60K employment income, then the UBI would push you to 76K and the UBI would effectively be taxed at the highest rate. If your only income was UBI then you would exceed the basic personal exemption, and would pay zero tax.

Everyone gets the same UBI, but some people pay more tax on it if they have other income.

"This is not UBI. The point of UBI is to be the basic income separate from working income, and not impacted by what one makes."

Again, Feel free to provide all of your own data and analysis to demonstrate your assertions.